People are touting this like it's a good thing or something, presumably this means a 30% reduction compared to the previous staffing this would have require. 30% is a lot.

[–] toototabon@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's perceived as good? (curious, why would it be?) Just that it's disingenuous to market it as AI. Everyone and their mother now has """AI""" 🤷‍♂️

[–] BeardedGingerWonder 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, good is probably the wrong word, I mean "positive in the sense it shows AI can't replace humans".

[–] toototabon@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh, i get it! Yeah, 30% is a considerable percentage.

Where I work (text-based customer support), a few weeks ago I stumbled upon a spreadsheet analysing that they could "save" 25% in wages by implementing GPT-4.

It may still be mostly humans on the line, but 1 out 4 of us may get the boot.

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is a tool for the bourgeoisie to minimise the contributions of human workers so that their political power, which draws on public perceptions, is reduced. If everyone thinks it's all run by AI, they're going to be confused by the idea of giving more pay to the workers. What workers? This makes it harder for workers to advocate for themselves and make demands.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder 1 points 11 months ago

It may be that, but a lot of people seem to be interpreting it as "oh look AI is shit, it'll never replace humans" when in actual fact its a headline that's saying "30% of the human workers have been replaced by AI for this use case"